New theories are trash ?????

[Le Repteux]

 

I analysed your sentence and determined that (a) it appeared to be factually incorrect and (b) had no supporting evidence and © is contradicted by evidence. Therefore I explained to you that it was wrong and why it was wrong.

 

Your continual repetition of baseless assertions with no support, and which are contradicted by evidence, is getting rather tedious.

OK, then why do you answer me? I could say the same from your answers but I don't! I just try to be more comprehensible. Nobody forces you to discuss with me you know. I am delighted to talk about my ideas, but not to be boring.

[cladking]

The two ideas have something in common: time and resisting to change. I like your idea, and I wonder if you would like mine...

 

 

I'll be watching though it sounds familiar. I'll try to respond if I can.

 

It is remarkable to see how people sometimes understand exactly the contrary to what was proposed by somebody else in a discussion. As Cladking was saying, most of the time, we see what we expect to see, and when the proposition is too strange, we cannot see it, so we see what we can see from our own information. I will repeat what I said, even if I expect almost no chance of getting anything new, its no big risk anyway: I said that we had to be optimistic to tell others about a new idea we have, to expect a positive response, otherwise it would be useless to talk about it. More precisely, since we are talking about intelligence, to learn something, we have to believe we will be able to, otherwise we don't even try. To do something new, we have to believe it will work. To build a bridge, people around will give their opinions and the decision may be taken altogether, but nevertheless, if somebody has a new idea, he has to believe in it to tell it.

 

 

This is why people so often respond with irrelevancies; they don't really understand the proposal because it's outside of their experience so they respond with their understanding of the reality which has no bearing on the proposal.

 

Getting the confidence to go against the common wisdom is a big part of getting the point across. I knew a lot of what I know before 2009 but I lacked both the confidence and the ability to phrase things adequately. This is part of the reason the theory is so easily dismissed today is that earlier incarnations were too tentative and some aspects were wrong. People often remember these earlier missteps. If you don't believe you can prevail you won't start one of these quests.

 

I've heard this claim before, and yet in these cases nobody making it has ever been able to come up with a concrete example of how not investigating or appreciating metaphysics has held back scientific discovery.

 

Interesting question.

 

This is going to require extensive thought I believe.

 

Off the top of my head and off the cuff, I believe it's worth understanding metaphysics for its own sake. The degree to which it affects the ability to learn is not readily apparent. It seems that integrating knowledge should always be beneficial.

 

I'll get back to you.

[swansont]

 

 

This is why people so often respond with irrelevancies; they don't really understand the proposal because it's outside of their experience so they respond with their understanding of the reality which has no bearing on the proposal.

 

 

Many of the alternative proposals we get here don't use, or mis-use, standard terminology, which is the fault of the presenter. If you're going to travel to a foreign country and you don't speak the language, it shouldn't be much of a mystery when nobody understands you.

[Strange]

 

It is the root cause of the silly science that runs rampant today.

 

"Silly science" works. Metaphysics doesn't.

[Le Repteux]

 

If you told me, I might observe that accusations require evidence. Without them, such accusations are dismissed. provide links to the instances, and use the report post function. Otherwise this is just OT nonsense.

 

If this is more about someone saying they have debunked your ideas, or similar, I will reiterate that attacking and idea and attacking a person are wholly different.

It was on a skeptic french forum Swansont, a few years ago, the moderator was arguing that he had the right to call names to participants proposing esoteric ideas, and I was included in the category. When participants do that, it is difficult to defend ourselves, but when it is a moderator, it is impossible.

[xyzt]

 

This is why people so often respond with irrelevancies; they don't really understand the proposal because it's outside of their experience so they respond with their understanding of the reality which has no bearing on the proposal.

 

Err, it took me exactly 30 seconds to tear down Le Repeux theory.

It took me a few minutes to tear down Mahesh Khati's theory (because it contained math).

So, why don't you post your "theory"?

[Phi for All]

I don't consider that my ideas are right, and I am nevertheless considered as crackpot without my ideas being properly studied. How do you explain that?

[snip]

 

Scientists are not the only ones to detect the problems with new theories, I do too quite often, but I respect people, and I will never say to them that their idea is idiot like you do. How is it so? Are some scientists less intelligent than me, a crackpot?

 

In discussions here, we should all try to avoid words that label the whole person, whether the context is bad or good, simply for accuracy's sake. Nobody is a single thing.

 

But a person's ideas aren't the person, or at least we can't view them that way here and be effective in discussion. So it's perfectly alright for someone to show how your idea is a crackpot idea, but they shouldn't call you personally a crackpot. We should assume that you have ideas that aren't considered crackpot ideas.

 

Personally, I don't like to use the word "idiotic" even when referring to ideas. I can call an idea stupid without implying the person is stupid, but idiotic implies that it came from an idiot, and that's not a blanket I'm comfortable throwing over anyone.

 

Just so we're clear about the definition, crackpot ideas are ones that tend to leap over lots of basic and important steps in order to address a concern that's usually a misconception about a particular mainstream theory. When you say your ideas haven't been studied properly, it's most likely because you didn't present them properly.

 

You're an engineer. If I came to you with an idea about using a fastening system made from lead (Pb) that would be ideal for a particular use since it's a poor electrical conductor, you would probably stop me right away and tell me that lead is too malleable for use as a fastener in this situation. How would you react if I continued to tell you how great my new system would be, and that we could somehow make lead stronger for this application? You know (in this analogy, at least) that lead just won't work, it can't take the stress in this application, but I'm thinking way down the road, about how my lead fasteners are going to solve our conductivity problems and have all kinds of other brilliant benefits. Hopefully, so nobody is hurt, you'll tell me you aren't going to spend any resources on my idea, simply because it fails in some of the most basic tests.

 

I have to ask now, what are you going to tell me when I complain that you didn't properly study my idea?

[cladking]

 

I meant that you're complaining in general about science based on areas of study that don't (or can't) adhere to the same levels of rigor as the hard sciences. Why that is the case is a discussion in itself, but the complaint hardly applies to the bulk of what we discuss (or try to discuss) on this site. So what's the point?

 

Perhaps we're talking about different things again.

 

I'm just trying to draw parallels I see with universal applications. I am not trying to defend any "crackpot" theory, even my own. I've strongly avoided even stating it since it's not the topic. But I certainly see the same tactics and misunderstandings used against other "alternative" understandings of reality. Part of the problem is language because a sentence can be interpreted many different ways. Some of these are very natural because the person who composed the sentence used literary devices or hyperbole or nonstandadrd word meanings or poor phraseology. Even if you get it exactly right each reader takes his own understanding and responds based on that understanding. If the proposal is far outside expectations then this problem is greatly compounded.

 

I'm really not complaining aboutr science. If I'm complaining at all it is against language and then, not so much against language as against the fact people don't realize the degree to which language is confused. Strange has yet to address any of my points or arguments but I'm sure this isn't intentional but rather that he misinterprets my intention. People are inclined to simply state their opinion when they see something outside their experience. It's very natural. The problem is language. I can't say anything in words that can't be deconstructed no matter how carefully I phrase it or how precisely each word is meant. I try to use tautologies to force readers to follow me but what's a tautology to me is off the wall nonsense to others. Rather than address the nonsense they ignore it altogether and state their opinion.

 

Certainly there is no rigor in the softer sciences but there's no reason that the scientific process can't be adapted to any field of study. I'm confident many experts are more keenly aware of this than I am. But there's no excuse for failing to do even the most basic science in any human endeavor at all. It might not be highly productive in fields like wild mushroom picking but there is no aspect of human activity that is completely outside of scientific knowledge. This certainly applies to all the soft sciences.

[swansont]

It was on a skeptic french forum Swansont, a few years ago, the moderator was arguing that he had the right to call names to participants proposing esoteric ideas, and I was included in the category. When participants do that, it is difficult to defend ourselves, but when it is a moderator, it is impossible.

 

IOW, completely irrelevant to this discussion. Who cares what happened on another forum in a discussion about how this forum treats non-mainstream ideas?

 

Perhaps we're talking about different things again.

 

I'm just trying to draw parallels I see with universal applications. I am not trying to defend any "crackpot" theory, even my own. I've strongly avoided even stating it since it's not the topic. But I certainly see the same tactics and misunderstandings used against other "alternative" understandings of reality. Part of the problem is language because a sentence can be interpreted many different ways. Some of these are very natural because the person who composed the sentence used literary devices or hyperbole or nonstandadrd word meanings or poor phraseology. Even if you get it exactly right each reader takes his own understanding and responds based on that understanding. If the proposal is far outside expectations then this problem is greatly compounded.

 

 

The point has already been made that this is a reason why we generally insist on math. It skips many of the ambiguities that language contains.

[xyzt]

 

If I came to you with an idea about using a fastening system made from lead (Pb) that would be ideal for a particular use since it's a poor electrical conductor, you would probably stop me right away and tell me that lead is too malleable for use as a fastener in this situation. How would you react if I continued to tell you how great my new system would be, and that we could somehow make lead stronger for this application? You know (in this analogy, at least) that lead just won't work, it can't take the stress in this application, but I'm thinking way down the road, about how my lead fasteners are going to solve our conductivity problems and have all kinds of other brilliant benefits. Hopefully, so nobody is hurt, you'll tell me you aren't going to spend any resources on my idea, simply because it fails in some of the most basic tests.

 

I have to ask now, what are you going to tell me when I complain that you didn't properly study my idea?

This is a great post.

[cladking]

 

Many of the alternative proposals we get here don't use, or mis-use, standard terminology, which is the fault of the presenter. If you're going to travel to a foreign country and you don't speak the language, it shouldn't be much of a mystery when nobody understands you.

 

 

Almost every word in every modern language has numerous meanings and the intended meaning only becomes clear through context. There are scientific words with more restricted meanings or whose intended meaning is more readily apparent but so long as each person sees a different meaning the problem can't be entirely eliminated. The problem is neither necessarily in the proposer nor the reader but is a result of language.

 

One of the beauties of ancient language was each word had a single meaning and author intent was in formatting rather than stated directly.

 

I have read many of these threads in Speculations and many seem to be very poorly worded and some are obviously poorly thought out. I've really enjoyed quite a few of these including some to which I haven't posted.

[Strange]

To me, it is evident that god is only an idea, but many scientists think that I am wrong. Does that mean that they have evidence that I am wrong?

 

Sorry, I thought we were talking about science. I don't know what individual options about the existence, or otherwise, of god have to do with it.

 

That evidence argument is a lure.

 

Nope. Science is based on evidence.

 

I also find that some theories are evidently wrong, but I am not telling it that way.

 

If you have evidence that some theory is wrong, why not present the evidence?

 

What's the use of being so rude?

 

Who is being rude? You keep saying people are calling you names, but no one is.

 

I am not trying to defend any "crackpot" theory, even my own. I've strongly avoided even stating it since it's not the topic.

 

You have mentioned it in almost every single post. For example...

 

One of the beauties of ancient language was each word had a single meaning and author intent was in formatting rather than stated directly.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[cladking]

 

"Silly science" works. Metaphysics doesn't.

 

I was referring to the silly science that gets reported in the media.

 

This would have been more apparent if you had read the next sentence as well.

[Strange]

 

I was referring to the silly science that gets reported in the media.

 

This would have been more apparent if you had read the next sentence as well.

 

I did. And it wasn't.

 

The point still stands. Technology is applied science. But there is no applied metaphysics/philosophy/theology. They may be entertaining but they are not useful.

[cladking]

You have mentioned it in almost every single post. For example...

 

 

 

This isn't my theory. My theory is related to an engineering question and the observation about language is a derivation or extrapolation (depending on perspective) from it. It is one of the few extrapolations relevant to the topic at hand beyond my experience in trying to get the engineering question solved. Indeed, it is this experience which has led to all this much more than the proposal itself.

 

I've always known language is confused but now I have a better understanding of how it's confused, how it became confused, and the results of the confusion; such as modern science. I can even see the confusion in the historic record and make inferences about how people behaved behaved before the confusion. I believe it's possible that history from before the confusion and ancient science itself can be reconstructed. This is drifting off topic but the fact is there's plenty of reason to believe language is the root of human progress and it is confused. This is point and probably the root of much of the disagreements with "crackpots".

 

 

 

The point still stands. Technology is applied science. But there is no applied metaphysics/philosophy/theology. They may be entertaining but they are not useful.

 

 

No! Technology is a sort of magic trick cast off by science. It is primarily the result of the ability to take experiments out of the lab and build them in the concrete. It is the application of theory and knowledge to the real world needs of people individually and collectively. As an engineer I'm sure you understand the skills needed to invent something new.

 

"Applied science" as I am using the term would be a branch of philosophy if it were even possible to build on the work of previous philosophers. It would answer questions like whether it's right to use stem cell research or use weaponry in some given application. It would integrate human needs with scientific knowledge. To some extent applied science exists but it's a very long time behind the times.

[Bignose]

This is point and probably the root of much of the disagreements with "crackpots".

No, the root is the lack of evidence they provide, or the lack of their acknowledgement that evidence that has already been collected is contrary to their idea. Strong evidence in science, statistically and objectively strong, is usually pretty language independent. I.e. if a ball takes 2.3 s to hit the ground, it doesn't really matter if you call it a ball, a bola, a bal, a μπάλα, a pila, or a castle.

 

If you're going to claim that language is limiting our ability to do science, then just like any other idea here, you're going to have to provide evidence of it. There was another member here who fervently believed that our use of the words 'theory' and 'law' were major determiners in the way they were used. He wasn't ever able to provide evidence for it. It is my hope that you can provide evidence you your idea (probably in a separate thread, this one is pretty cluttered as is).

Edited September 25, 2014 by Bignose

[Strange]

No! Technology is a sort of magic trick cast off by science.

 

For someone who is obsessed by language (but apparently completely ignorant of linguistics as a science) you are very poor at expressing yourself.

Do you really mean your computer runs by magic? I assume not.

 

It is primarily the result of the ability to take experiments out of the lab and build them in the concrete. It is the application of theory and knowledge to the real world needs of people individually and collectively.

 

Exactly: applied science.

 

It would answer questions like whether it's right to use stem cell research or use weaponry in some given application.

 

That is just philosophy. It might use information from science and technology but is is not itself science or technology. (It is, arguably, one of the rare instances where the disciplines learnt in philosophy can make themselves useful.)

[Le Repteux]

 

I have to ask now, what are you going to tell me when I complain that you didn't properly study my idea?

I guess I would stop discussing after having wished you good luck.

[physica]

wow you guys have some patience. Bignose and strange have repeated themselves a few times. It's a shame that the other two don't seem to be comprehending it. Anyhow this is a prime example of how good the science forum is at hearing people out.

 

 

I guess I would stop discussing after having wished you good luck.

This is simple dodging. Phi has given lengthy well thought out posts and you fob us off with this instead of conceding that he has a good point. Even if we take this insult at face value what you're saying is that you'd just walk away and ignore when he complains that you didn't properly study his idea and refrain from reasoning with him. After this statement you don't have a leg to stand on when commenting about how others hear out ideas.

 

This is quite amusing, your reasoning is so limited that even your cheap fob off tactic discredits your previous statements.

[Le Repteux]

Nope. Science is based on evidence.

I also find that most of the fringe theories that are presented on different forums are evidently wrong. Does that mean I am a scientist?

 

If you have evidence that some theory is wrong, why not present the evidence?

Sorry, I should have added that I was talking about fringe theories.

 

Who is being rude? You keep saying people are calling you names, but no one is.

You are right, xyzt has stopped calling me names, for the moment, and this a lot more interesting, at least for me.

[Strange]

I also find that most of the fringe theories that are presented on different forums are evidently wrong.

 

You have now said twice that you think some theories are wrong. Yet you fail to provide any evidence. Do you begin to see a pattern?

 

Does that mean I am a scientist?

 

Your absolute refusal to support any of your claims with evidence, and the fact that you totally ignore any evidence that refutes your claims, show that you are the very antithesis of a scientist.

[Le Repteux]

wow you guys have some patience. Bignose and strange have repeated themselves a few times. It's a shame that the other two don't seem to be comprehending it. Anyhow this is a prime example of how good the science forum is at hearing people out.

 

This is simple dodging. Phi has given lengthy well thought out posts and you fob us off with this instead of conceding that he has a good point. Even if we take this insult at face value what you're saying is that you'd just walk away and ignore when he complains that you didn't properly study his idea and refrain from reasoning with him. After this statement you don't have a leg to stand on when commenting about how others hear out ideas.

 

This is quite amusing, your reasoning is so limited that even your cheap fob off tactic discredits your previous statements.

I suspected that this respite could not last long and I was right: xyzt had another alter ego in his hat.

[Strange]

I suspected that this respite could not last long and I was right: xyzt had another alter ego in his hat.

 

Are you accusing a member of the forum of being a sock-puppet? That is a pretty serious accusation (and should be done by a report to the moderators, rather than a post in the forum).

 

Or are you accusing someone of calling you names? If so, I cannot understand why. There is still no name calling.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Strange

[Le Repteux]

You have now said twice that you think some theories are wrong. Yet you fail to provide any evidence. Do you begin to see a pattern?

Evidence of what? You want me to give examples of theories that I find evidently wrong? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean!

 

Your absolute refusal to support any of your claims with evidence, and the fact that you totally ignore any evidence that refutes your claims, show that you are the very antithesis of a scientist.

If you believe so, what can I do? Do you agree that we stop discussing and wish us good luck?

[physica]

I suspected that this respite could not last long and I was right: xyzt had another alter ego in his hat.

Manage to ignore the point completely. You're doing an amazing job of living up to your double standards and completely ignoring things that are inconvenient to you. I'm sorry that you find the truth hurtful... would explain your reasoning though.

 

Your post isn't surprising. You've not made a solid point in the whole thread and your reasoning is so poor that you've tied your own noose by exposing your own double standard. It's so obvious that you only have two options left: admit that you're logic is flawed and that you have exposed your own double standard or play the victim card. You've decided to hide under the last rock and play the victim card.

 

quote where I have been unreasonable and state why

 

Hey guess what when you can't do that simply stick your head in the sand that also works.